Duquesne UniversityDuquesne Scholarship Collection

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Summer 2008

Framing Strategies of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,Transgender Advocacy Organizations: The Case ofLet California Ring's 'Garden Wedding'CommercialHelena Mica

Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd

This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in ElectronicTheses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contactphillipsg@duq.edu.

Recommended CitationMica, H. (2008). Framing Strategies of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Advocacy Organizations: The Case of Let CaliforniaRing's 'Garden Wedding' Commercial (Master's thesis, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/929

FRAMING STRATEGIES OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER

ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF LET CALIFORNIA RING’S

“GARDEN WEDDING” COMMERCIAL

A Thesis

Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts

Duquesne University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts

By

Helena Mica

August 2008

Copyright by

Helena L. Mica

2008

iii

Helena L. Mica

FRAMING STRATEGIES OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER

ADVOCACY ORGANIZATONS: THE CASE OF LET CALIFORNIA RING‘S

―GARDEN WEDDING‖ COMMERCIAL

Master of Arts

Thesis Proposal

Approved July 15, 2008

Proposal Approved:_______________________________________________________

Joseph Yenerall, Ph.D., Associate Professor, First Reader

Proposal Approved: _______________________________________________________

Moni McIntyre, Ph. D., Assistant Professor, Second Reader

Proposal Approved: _______________________________________________________

Joseph Yenerall, Ph. D., Director

Graduate Center for Social and Public Policy

Proposal Approved: _______________________________________________________

Albert C. Labriola, Ph.D., Acting Dean

McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts

iv

ABSTRACT

FRAMING STRATEGIES OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER

ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF LET CALIFORNIA RING‘S

―GARDEN WEDDING‖ COMMERCIAL

By

Helena L. Mica

August, 2008

Thesis Supervised by Dr. Joseph Yenerall, Ph. D., Director

Graduate Center of Social and Public Policy

No. of Pages in Text: 51

Framing is the process of presenting a complicated argument by relying on the

ideas and concepts that a person already has regarding a basic subject. The idea of same-

sex marriage has traditionally been presented by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender

(LGBT) advocacy organizations using a frame of equal rights, with same-sex couples

seeking equal treatment under the law. However, due to a lack of support for this

argument, the organization Let California Ring introduced the ―Garden Wedding‖

commercial in the fall of 2007 that presented same-sex marriage in a new, emotional

frame. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the organization Let California Ring,

particularly in terms of what differentiates their organization from other LGBT advocacy

organizations; the presentation of the emotional frame found in the ―Garden Wedding‖

commercial; and news media reaction to both the organization and the commercial itself.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract iv

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review 4

Theory 4

The Frame and Framing Presentation 9

Framing the Same-Sex Marriage Debate 16

Chapter 3 Research Terms and Conceptual Framework 25

Chapter 4 Research 28

The Organization: Let California Ring 28

Let California Ring‘s ―Garden Wedding‖ Commercial 33

Presentation of the Frame: Media Reaction 40

Conclusions, Concerns, and Further Research 48

References 52

1

Chapter 1

Framing Strategies of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender

Advocacy Organizations: The Case of Let California

Ring‘s ―Garden Wedding Commercial‖

Introduction

According to Thom Hartmann, host of syndicated radio show Air America, ―a

frame is a simple way of understanding a complex set of feelings and sensations‖ (129).

The frame of an argument may not say anything regarding the actual substance of the

argument, but it is the way in which it is presented to the audience. Why is this

important? ―Politics is all about frames… once you‘ve defined a frame, you‘ve colored

or changed the meaning of everything that is contained in that frame‖ (Hartmann, 129).

Issues for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community have had

to be especially presented with care, in every aspect of legislation. As Haider-Markel

(2001) explains

How an issue is framed will determine whether or not it reaches the

political agenda, what venues are suitable for its discussion, what actors

will be mobilized and/or allowed to participate in the policy process, the

focus of the policy proposals, and who wins and who loses within political

institutions (359)

2

While framing is important in all LGBT issues, in the case of same-sex marriage, framing

has come to be the key element of the debate.

The debate over same-sex marriage has been a struggle in the United States since

the early 1990s when Hawaii first questioned the legalities of limiting the idea of

marriage to ―one man and one woman.‖ Since that time, the Defense of Marriage Act has

come to pass, the Federal Marriage Amendment has been proposed, and forty-four states

have either state laws or state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage: the

exceptions are New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and

of course, California (Human Rights Campaign Statewide Marriage Prohibitions Map,

2008).

California is an interesting case. After having enacted a same-sex marriage ban in

2000, the law was challenged in 2003 when San Francisco began to offer marriage

licenses for same-sex couples, only to have those later revoked by the state. There have

also been a few legislative attempts to pass a law supporting same-sex marriage, which

were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. On May 15, 2008, however, the state

Supreme Court made a landmark decision overruling the previous bans.

Even with the decision made by the Supreme Court, the roller coaster ride is not

over, as an initiative that would again outlaw same-sex marriage in California has

qualified for the November ballot. According to Lisa Leff of the Oakland Tribune,

If approved by a majority of voters Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn

the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex

marriage in the state. It is similar to same-sex marriage bans that have

been adopted in 26 other states (2008).

In the fall of 2007, there was another attempt to pass litigation that would recognize

marriages between two members of the same-sex. During that time, when Governor

3

Arnold Schwarzenegger was expected to veto the legislation, a pro-same-sex marriage

organization called ―Let California Ring‖ stepped forward with a somewhat different

agenda in mind; to open up the lines of dialogue and discussion amongst undecided

voters. Their primary tactic for opening up this discourse was through a commercial

framing same-sex marriage in a light different from previous arguments. Instead of

arguing for equal rights, it presented the contention in the context of marrying for love.

The purpose of this paper is to examine framing strategies of LGBT advocacy

organizations, particularly around the issue of same-sex marriage. A theory of how these

organizations determine the best argument to present to the public, the media through

which the argument is presented, the treatment of framed argument by the recipients, and

the counter-arguments presented by opponents will be examined in the literature review.

Finally, this paper will conclude with an analysis of the ―Garden Wedding‖ commercial

produced by the pro same-sex organization in California, known as ―Let California

Ring.‖

4

Chapter 2: Literature

Theory

Understanding how LGBT advocacy agencies operate and function is a key

element to understanding how they chose which framing strategy to select. One such

theory in organizational theory is that of how organizations ―think‖ or ―learn‖, also called

―brain theory.‖ The specific focus in this theory is how organizations such as LGBT

advocacy agencies must learn. As Morgan (2006) explains

In a nutshell, brain theory suggests that learning organizations must

develop capacities that allow them to do the following:

Scan and anticipate change in the wider environment to detect

significant variations

Develop an ability to question, challenge, and change operating

norms and assumptions

Allow an appropriate strategic direction and pattern of organization

to emerge.

They must also evolve designs that allow them to become skilled

in the art of double-loop learning, to avoid getting trapped in

single-loop processes, especially those created by traditional

management control systems and the defensive routines of

organizational members (87)

In many ways, LGBT advocacy agencies must become adaptive as the circumstances

change.

5

The concepts of single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning are better

explained by turning to Foldy (1999). In single-loop learning, ―actors (whether

individuals, groups or organizations) consider more effective methods or strategies for

achieving their guiding principles (which may be manifested as goals, policies, or

values), but these actors are not open to questioning those principles‖ (213). In other

words, members within organizations consider their goals, but are not willing to change

or alter their goals, and are less likely to change their strategies and methods toward

achieving those goals. Double-loop learning ―results when actors do evaluate and change

their guiding principles‖ (213); in other words, double-loop learning is when an

organization recognizes that previous strategies are not working, and changes those in

order to achieve their goals. Finally, in triple-loop learning, ―actors go beyond

questioning their own values and consider values of the societal tradition system in which

their actions are taking place‖ (213). To further explain, triple-loop learning occurs when

an organization manages to change their strategic approach to a goal while also

challenging the traditional system of the dominant society.

Examining how organizations think is not limited to how organizations learn, but

also to their creativity as well. According to Woodman et. al. ―organizational creativity

is the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by

individuals working together in a complex social system‖ (293). This is a concept that

ties in very well with the idea of how organizations learn: ―creativity for individuals and

organizations—doing something for the first time anywhere or creating new

knowledge—represents a dramatic aspect of organizational change that may provide a

key to understanding change phenomena and ultimately, organizational effectiveness and

6

survival‖ (293-294). When one considers organizational creativity together with loop-

learning, it becomes clear that these are concepts and techniques that have had to be

adapted by LGBT advocacy organizations—not only do these organizations challenge the

status quo of the traditional population, but they must also present their ideas, concerns,

and goals in a variety of creative ways in order to gain support by the dominant

population.

Furthermore, organizational creativity operates in a manner similar to loop-

learning as

the process is based on trial-and-error learning in which (a) some

mechanism introduces variation such as different possible associations, (b)

a consistent selection process allows the selection of particular

combinations of associations, and (c) some mechanism exists to preserve

and reproduce selected variations (299).

As both loop-learning and organizational creativity operate in much the same way, it is

easy to recognize that LGBT advocacy organizations operate using these techniques

when framing social change policies.

It is interesting to consider how framing functions within social movements and

the organizations of those movements. According to Benford and Snow, frames ―enable

individuals to locate, perceive, identify, and label occurrences within their life space at

large‖ (614). Furthermore, they ―help to render events or occurrences meaningful and

thereby function to organize experience and guide actions‖ (614). In other words, frames

in social movement theory, act as a way for people to define what a problem is, how best

to approach that problem, and to provide possible remedies for the defined problem.

There are three kinds of frames according to Benford and Snow: ―diagnostic

framing,‖ ―prognostic framing,‖ and ―motivational framing‖ (615). Diagnostic frames

7

are referred to as ―injustice frames‖ which are a ―mode of interpretation—prefatory to

collective noncompliance, protest, and/or rebellion—generated and adopted by those who

come to define the actions of an authority as unjust‖ (615). In other words, these are the

types of frames that an organization presents when describing an injustice.

In the case LGBT advocacy agencies supporting same-sex marriage, the most

commonly found argument is the civil rights argument and the equality of same-sex

couples with heterosexual couples in regard to benefits of being a recognized couple in

the United States. Furthermore, ―since social movements seek to remedy or alter some

problematic situation or issue, it follows that directed action is contingent on

identification of the source(s) of causality, blame, and/or culpable agents‖ (616): in the

case of same-sex marriage, many organizations have blamed the government and

conservative religious (primarily Christian) organizations.

Prognostic framing ―involves the articulation of a proposed solution to the

problem, or at least a plan of attack, and the strategies for carrying out the plan‖ (616).

With regard to pro same-sex marriage organizations, many have attempted to achieve

recognition of same-sex couples through the courts system, but voter referendums have

also been used (although those have been used primarily in order to prevent same-sex

marriages from occurring within a state).

Motivational framing ―provides a ‗call to arms‘ or rationale for engaging in

ameliorative collective action, including the construction of appropriate vocabularies of

motive‖ (617). For example, rather than simply calling for equal recognition of same-sex

couples, advocates of same-sex marriage directly frame their concerns of equal rights

8

with regard to taxes, health care, child care, wills, finances, and several other areas in

which married heterosexual couples have an advantage over unmarried same-sex couples.

With regard to framing strategies in social movement organizations, they are

―deliberative, utilitarian, and goal directed‖ (Benford, 624). Same-sex marriage

advocating organizations must use a variety of strategies such as ―frame amplification‖ in

order to achieve their goals. This strategy ―involves the idealization, embellishment,

clarification, or invigoration of existing values or beliefs‖ (624). In other words, by

appealing to the general public, these organizations hope to tap into dominant cultural

beliefs such as equal rights and romantic love.

9

Chapter 2: Literature

Literature Review: The Frame and Framing Presentation

As discussed earlier, framing is ―an interpretive schemata that signifies and

condenses the ‗world out there‘ by selectively punctuating and encoding objects,

situations, events, experiences, and sequences of action in one‘s present or past

environment‖ (Steinberg, 845). In other words, framing is the process of using phrases,

ideas, and beliefs that people already have in order to better explain current events and

present new situations to them. By analyzing the frame, one is able to gather

considerable information; as Steinberg explains, ―frame analysis provides us with

considerable insight into the ideological dynamics of structuring opposition, mobilizing

actors, and sustaining cohesion necessary for successful collective action‖ (846).

Understanding the frame is not only important for understanding the viewpoint of the

presenter, but also for understanding how discussion about an issue influences its

outcome through the use of language and narrative. Regardless of the argument,

―ideological factors-values, beliefs, meanings‖ (Steinberg, 847) are used to influence

policy debates and decisions. Advocates on all sides of debates strategically frame their

10

arguments using culturally relevant belief systems, norms, and values in order to

influence their listeners to their side of the debate.

This same strategy can also be found in the political process as normative ideas

―lie in background of policy debates but constrain action by limiting the range of

alternatives that elites are likely to perceive as acceptable and legitimate rather than

useful means to an end‖ (Campbell, 23). To a policy maker, their values, norms, and

beliefs

may affect their position on public policies by helping them decide which

policies are the most appropriate—an especially important consideration

when, as is frequently the case, there is no conclusive evidence about

which policy option is most likely to work best. (Campbell, 24)

It is because frames rely so heavily on norms and values to begin with that they can be

viewed as a form of social influence, Steinberg asks, ―if discourse is deployed rationally,

how can we view framing as an exercise in reality construction without assuming a social

control model in which elite actors manipulate popular consciousness?‖ (851).

Phrasing frames in terms of cultural norms and values is a way of reaching out to

a broad audience, in that they will be at least familiar with the belief system; it is also a

way of reaching out to the targeted audience‘s emotions. As Nabi explains ―once an

emotion is evoked, its associated action tendency, which arises in response to the core

relational theme, serves to guide information processing, influencing what information is

attended to and likely to be recalled and what is ignored‖ (227). In other words, emotions

related to normative cultural values, when presented with frames phrased using cultural

norms and values, aid the individual in processing the frame by influencing what is a

valuable argument and what is to be ignored.

11

This process is an example of what Druckman calls a ―framing effect‖ (1044): or

to be more exact, ―the importance individuals attach to particular beliefs‖ (1044).

Furthermore this ―occurs in the course of describing an issue or event, a speaker‘s

emphasis on a subset of potentially relevant considerations causes individuals to focus on

these considerations when constructing their opinion‖ (Druckman, 1042). If a person

holds the cultural norms and values strongly within themselves, they are more likely to be

responsive to the normative frames presented to them by one side. However, if an

individual does not hold these cultural norms so highly, they may be more open to the

viewpoint presented by the opposing side.

Nabi explains that there is ―empirical evidence that discrete, context-relevant

emotions selectively affect information processing, recall, and judgment and is essential

to support the claim that emotions act as frames‖ (228). Emotions such as anger and fear

―can promote different degrees of message-processing, with uncertainty appraisal serving

as the key moderator‖ (Nabi, 228). In other words, when an individual feels anger or

fear in reaction to a particular frame, that feeling helps to prod the recalling of the

argument later. Other emotions in reaction to frames can act similarly and for similar

reasons. For example, ―some emotions such as disgust and surprise enhance recall of the

central concepts of commercials in the short and long term compared to other emotions

such as happiness, fear, and guilt‖ (Nabi 228). It is reasonable to expect that when a

frame (which is used to sell a policy idea) results in a feeling of disgust in an individual,

they are more likely to recall the core arguments of those with whom they disagree.

When an argument does not create such feelings in the listeners, or when the

targets of a frame are undecided regarding an issue, that presents the opportunity for the

12

advocates to change their targets‘ minds to their own conclusion. This act of persuasion

―takes place when a communicator effectively revises the content of one‘s beliefs about

an attitude object, replacing or supplementing favorable thoughts with unfavorable ones

or vice-versa‖ (Druckman, 1044). As mentioned before, if a person holds the cultural

values presented in a normative frame very strongly, they already agree with some of the

advocates. But, for those who are unsure, new frames and differently presented

arguments can result in a change of mind of the audience. For many advocates on

different sides of an issue, these undecided people are often the primary targets for their

arguments.

Persuading the undecided can be as difficult as forming the initial frame. One

concern is that due to a lack of literature on when framing works and doesn‘t work;

framing effects may be entirely the result of elite manipulation. However, rather than

believing that framing effects act as evidence of elite manipulation, Druckman suggests

that

framing effects may occur because citizens delegate to ostensibly credible

elites to help them sort through many possible frames…. people turn to

elites for guidance and they are thus selective about which frames they

believe—they only believe frames that come from sources they perceive to

be credible (1045).

Through the course of two experiments, Druckman found evidence to support the above

statement: that credible sources were deemed to be reliable when providing information

and frames, and non-credible sources were not thought to be reliable, even when

providing the same information and frames as the credible sources (1059).

For example, Gibson and Hester studied the effects of credible sources discussing

gay and lesbian issues and the fears that there might be a bias in news coverage over

13

these issues. The results of the study offered ―little support for previously expressed

fears that news coverage of gay issues—coverage that may privilege an anti-gay point of

view through the use of official and prestigious sources—would lead to increased anti-

gay sentiment in readers‖ (79). They found no evidence that readers who were exposed

to credible sources either supporting or opposing same-sex marriage were more likely to

agree with that point of view.

Along with ensuring that there are credible resources providing information and

frames, it is equally important to have these frames presented in a credible manner. One

of the most common places for information to be dispersed and public events discussed is

the newspaper. As Oliver and Myers explain, ―the public discussion of public issues is

important, that public events plan a significant role in promoting or shaping the public

sphere, and that mass media are important conduits of information between groups of

people‖ (40) is a basic fact. The discussion of these public issues can vary as ―at any

given time, there are certainly regularities and patterns about the kinds of content

conveyed in various forms, but these meanings are always contextual and always

evolving‖ (Oliver and Myers, 41).

Expectedly, one concern is the level of bias in reporting on public discourse;

however, ―we can assess biases in the coverage of protest or claims-making content only

by measuring it against the coverage of other kinds of content or the lack of message

content‖ (Oliver and Myers, 41). In this way, ―the same issue can be constructed as

contentious or not and the boundary between contentious and consensual issues are

always evolving‖ (Oliver and Myers, 41). In order to determine what events or frames

are considered newsworthy, one has to recognize the systemic factors that categorize the

14

likelihood that an event (or frame) will be covered in the newspaper. There are three

kinds of events that influence the likelihood of coverage: ―the predispositions of news

organizations or of particular reporters toward certain kinds of events or issues,

journalistic norms and standards for assessing the news value of events and issues, and

the mundane routines of producing news reports for deadlines‖ (Oliver and Myers, 45),

each of which will be discussed in more detail.

Oliver and Myers explain that ―movement-oriented commentators often stress the

predispositions of news organizations or reporters in selecting events for coverage‖ (45).

These commentators focus on the concentrated control of the mass media, specifically the

lack of coverage of events due to concerns about social disorder.

In terms of news value, ―journalistic norms and standards for assessing the news

value of events are widely agreed to be important in determining which events get

coverage‖ (Oliver and Myers, 45). News value criteria taught to journalism students

generally includes

the prominence or importance of the issues including the number of

people affected and the magnitude of the effect; human interest and human

drama; conflict or controversy; the unusual; timeliness; and proximity,

with a proximity for local events over distant ones (Oliver and Myers, 46)

When one considers the recent same-sex marriages occurring in California, it is less

surprising to see that there has been less coverage over the event in the Eastern United

States versus the coverage in California and other states nearby.

Finally, in terms of new routines, ―it is helpful to distinguish the more mundane

news routine constraints on the reporter‘s job, specifically the problems of getting

information and writing to meet a deadline‖ (Oliver and Myers, 46). A deadline for when

information can be provided is certainly a major issue of concern for a local newspaper;

15

however, when one considers new methods of news information dispersion such as 24-

hour news channels, official internet news sites where international news reporters can

post a story at any time, local and non-local news coverage several times a day, and the

most recent media for message-spreading, internet blogs, this is less an area of concern.

According to the March 13, 2006 article, ―A New Medium for the Message,‖

―interest groups are increasingly using the Internet to reach beyond the Beltway

(Washington, DC) and traditional lobbying techniques to bring more voices to bear on

Congress‖ (54). By relying on the new technology, these organizations have been able to

show Congress their broad base of support, indicating that their constituents are the same

and that their causes should be heard. By using blogs ―millions of like-minded people

can be marshaled at a moment‘s notice to flood Congress with e-mails or phone calls on

any issue the groups consider vital‖ (54). There is a down side, however: ―the sheer

volume can end up seeming like just a lot of noise, and lose meaning in the process‖ (55).

Furthermore, unless these organizations have a compelling argument, these mass voices

are largely ignored. This does not mean that all blogging should stop though, because

many politicians are keeping an eye on them, as well as setting up their own blogs.

It will be interesting to investigate how in the age of new technologies and the

Internet, an older idea such as a commercial may influence the same-sex marriage debate

in California.

16

Chapter 2: Literature

Literature Review: Framing the Same-sex Marriage Debate

The debate over same-sex marriage may be one of the country‘s most complicated

issues in recent memory. There are two primary sides to the debate with a little-heard-

from third one, and very little in the way of a clear answer as to how to solve the issue.

Despite a growing acceptance of LGBT Americans since the late 1960s when the Gay

Rights movement began, ―it was the Hawaii case that put same-sex marriage on the

political and cultural radar screen, eventually prompting passage of the federal Defense

of Marriage Act and similar legislation in more than thirty states‖ (Hull, 207).

In 1990, three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Hawaii. When

these applications were denied by the health department on the grounds that the couples

were of the same sex, the couples decided to sue the state, only to have their case

dismissed by the circuit court. It was only on appeal that the Hawaii Supreme Court

remanded the case to trial and found that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex

couples could be construed as a violation of Hawaii state constitution‘s equal rights

amendment. Unless the state could show that the statute‘s sex-based classification was

justified by compelling governmental interests, the court would find in favor of the

17

plaintiffs. Subsequently, Hawaii legislature passed a law to ensure that only opposite-sex

couples would be legally recognized (Hull, 212-213).

Since that time, as the debate over same-sex marriage has grown to the point

where all but six states have either a law or a state constitutional amendment banning

same-sex marriage, there have been a variety of arguments made both for and against

same-sex marriage. The primary frame for same-sex marriage has been the argument of

protecting civil rights by seeking equal treatment and protection of same-sex couples

under the law that currently protects only opposite-sex couples. One of the primary

arguments against same-sex marriage is that advocates are not seeking equal rights, but

rather ―special rights.‖ The other argument is the ―morality‖ defense; this will be more

thoroughly examined below.

In trying to understand the ―equal rights‖ frame, one should examine the rights

that same-sex couples are seeking to receive through the process of marriage. According

to the Human Rights Campaign (an LGBT human rights organization), committed same-

sex couples both pay more in taxes annually and are also denied basic rights that are

afforded to legally recognized opposite-sex couples including:

Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each

other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be

denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments

upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian

workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits – resulting in an

average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical

coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not

provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay

employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay

federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of

his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian

18

taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a

deceased partner.

Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse‘s

401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American

who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and

penalties.

Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from

their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not

entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or

forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration

law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex

partners to immigrate.

Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in

nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian

couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in

nursing homes.

Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell

their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have

no such protection.

Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor

benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners

are excluded from such pension benefits. (www.hrc.org, ―Questions About

Same-Sex Marriage")

Advanced planning in the form of documentation such as wills can provide for some of

these missing rights for same-sex couples; however, as Riggle et. al. (2006) point out,

only ―marriage automatically confers rights on each partner to protect his or her

relationship in times of crisis‖ (760).

In analyzing the same-sex marriage debate both in Canada and in the United

States, Smith (2007) discovered that ―because the rights frame dominates Canadian

political discourse, it is very difficult for right-wing politicians and the religious Right to

counter the claims of same-sex marriage‖ (7). Interestingly, it is in the United States that

―the rights frame is politicized in a different way and tied directly to right-wing backlash

politics‖ (7); this is connected to the fact that ―rights for lesbians and gays are

discursively constructed as part of a complex of public policy issues on which there is a

19

highly politicized debates about morality and race‖ (7). In Canada, ―the rights frame is

centered in the approbation of homosexual behaviors, identities and relationships and,

yet, the role of morality in the rights frame is explicitly discounted‖ (9). The

―wrongness‖ of homosexuality isn‘t considered in the frame, unlike what has happened in

the United States.

It is not the rights frame alone that differed between same-sex marriage cases in

Canada and the United States. In the United States, the rights frame stems from rights

recognition found in the Bill of Rights where ―there are several provisions that have been

used to litigate lesbian and gay rights claims, including the First Amendment (free speech

and assembly) and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment‖ (Smith,

13). However, in Canada, gay and lesbian rights cases have been mostly litigated under

section 15 of the Canadian Charter: ―section 15 is more straightforward than the

Fourteenth Amendment; it prohibits state action that violates equality rights of citizens

and enumerates an open-ended list of such grounds‖ (Smith, 13). The real issue has

revolved around what makes a ―suspect class,‖ a group which has historically

experienced discrimination. Unlike the Canadian Charter which ―strictly bans

discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, and a range of other grounds, there has

been a struggle in the USA over the inclusion of groups such as women within the

suspect (or quasi-suspect) class‖ (Smith, 13).

The equal rights argument is widely used by LGBT advocates in the United

States, and

although they would like to obtain full marital status for same-sex

partnerships, popular objections to treating such partnerships as marriages

(which have religious as well as legal standing) have led many to advocate

20

instead for ‗civil unions,‘ which are viewed as more feasible politically

(Price et. al. 184)

This single distinction between the use of ―marriage‖ and ―civil unions‖ can also

influence the responses from the general public. In their investigation, Price et. al. (2005)

split internet discussion boards into ideologically conservative, ideologically liberal, and

mixed groups and then presented them frames regarding same-sex couples using the

terms of ―same-sex marriage‖ and ―civil unions‖ in discussing LGBT rights.

Their results ―suggest that the framing manipulations did influence the ways that

groups discuss the prospect of legalizing gay partnerships‖ (Price et. al. 200).

Furthermore, ―these effects were contingent on the ideological makeup of the groups‖

(Price et. al. 200). Groups that were ideologically liberal were more inclined to support

both civil unions and same-sex marriage (though to a lesser extent), often citing the rights

frame. Groups that were ideologically conservative were more inclined to use moral

arguments and ―special rights‖ arguments against both same-sex marriage and civil

unions (however, they were slightly more inclined to support civil unions). Finally,

groups that were ideologically mixed were mixed in terms of support and in terms of

citing specific arguments, favoring neither of the frames.

Similar results were produced in Soule‘s (2004) research regarding same-sex

marriage bans across the states. States that had (in general) a more Democrat base were

less likely to pass same-sex marriage bans, but not significantly less so than states with a

strong Republican base. It is reasonable to assume that in states where there was no

strong Republican or Democrat base, that there was the greatest level of discourse.

As mentioned before, the rights frame is the primary argument when used by

advocates for same-sex marriage, but there are a couple of arguments against same-sex

21

marriage that should be considered as well: anti-marriage within the LGBT community,

the morality frame, and the claim of special rights.

One unusual frame against same-sex marriage actually stems from the gay and

lesbian community. According to the queer culture frame, ―traditional heterosexual

marriage is a patriarchal institution that entails the oppression of women and the

marginalization of those who do not fit the white, middle-class norm‖ (Smith, 10).

Through critiquing the dominant heterosexual society and denying it on the basis of not

wanting to participate in a system that is inherently unfair, the frame calls for a rejection

of that system.

The morality frame states that ―the behavior or lifestyle of homosexuals may be

judged to be wrong or as undeserving of social sanction and state support‖ (Smith, 10).

But this view can still be addressed in a variety of ways: ―at one end of the scale, some

may frame lesbians and gays as socially repugnant and distasteful, thus conveying a deep

sense of stigma toward lesbian and gay people and their relationships‖; on the other hand,

the morality frame also encompasses those who believe that homosexuals and even

homosexual behavior can be tolerated in private but who defend state policies and actions

that exclude homosexual relationships from some or all forms of legal protection and

recognition on the ground that these relationships are inferior to those of heterosexuals

(Smith, 10).

While the morality frame may be the most oft-presented frame, the frame of

same-sex marriage as seeking ―special rights‖ must also be considered. According to

Dudas, the ―special rights‖ frame stems from ―the allegation that certain populations are

seeking special rights is, in fact, a reaction to the political activism of women, African

22

Americans, the physically and mentally disabled, Native Americans, and gays and

lesbians over the last 50 years‖ (724). This frame has developed as a result of resentful

Americans creating their own backlash movement in response to the social changes in the

last half of the twentieth century. Their resentment, ―propelled by an overwhelming

sense of injury that portrays egalitarian social change as not only damaging to their

interests but also fundamentally unfair, has reshaped the contours of American politics‖

(Dudas, 724).

The special rights frame in the politics of resentment is constructed in two ways;

―first, the languages and logics by which resentment is expressed are central, not

incidental, to resentment itself; and these languages and logics tend to be neutral and

persuasive, often obscuring the specific interests that resentment bolsters‖ (Dudas, 727).

In other words, the resentment felt by these activists can be found throughout the

language and arguments used by the activists, and that while the resentment is plain, the

reasoning behind the resentment is less so. Second, ―resentment is a general feature of

modern life; the impressions of unfairness, violation, and victimization to which it gives

voice makes intelligible and meaningful a whole array of potential experiences and

behaviors‖ (Dudas, 727). The targets of these groups feel resentment without

understanding why, but the language that they use is able to give those feelings of

resentment meaning, and eventually, a target toward which they can be aimed: at the

groups that are not seeking equality but rather, special treatment.

The process of a right claim turning into a special right involves ―simultaneously

a degradation of the rights claim, and implicitly, a defense of the cultural and material

arrangements that are under attack from that rights claim in the first place‖ (Dudas, 734).

23

This happens in two different steps: ―first, a rights claim is pronounced special if it is

understood to be exclusive—if it asks for the claimant to be treated differently by

government than are other similarly situated citizens‖ (Dudas, 734). For example, it‘s

been suggested that same-sex couples who are seeking marriage rights are clamoring for

mandated social approval of their relationships (Weithoff, 69). Secondly, ―a right is

deemed special if it is understood to generate for its recipient unearned privilege‖ (Dudas,

734). The dominant religion in the United States (if undeclared) is that of Christianity,

which does not have a history of being sympathetic toward gays and lesbians. Religious

organizations often state that protection of LGBT people is not necessary because it is

against their beliefs and any support of the people is against those beliefs (Weithoff, 70).

Finally, ―claims for special rights are claims for benefits in excess of those that

would be granted by a just social order—one orchestrated according to the practice of

equal rights‖ (Dudas 734-735). Seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples can be

considered as pushing societal support of these couples onto those who do not want to

have to be supportive of them. As a result, these groups of people can claim that

advocates of same-sex marriage are seeking special rights.

The claims of same-sex marriage advocates seeking ―special rights‖ can be traced

back to the letters to the editors found during the course of the same-sex marriage ban

amendment in Hawaii after the first case was presented to the courts.

Hull found that among the letters opposing same-sex marriage, ―the two most

frequent themes were the need for the will of the majority to prevail on the issue of same-

sex marriage and objections to the tactics of supporters of same-sex marriage‖ (220).

This call for the will of the majority to prevail on the issue of same-sex marriage is

24

similar to the ideas of recipients receiving undeserved privilege and benefits being

granted in excess of those granted by a just social-order. The idea is that same-sex

marriage advocates would be impinging on the freedom of religion and religious

expression as well as the general population‘s lack of support of same-sex couples by

forcing them to recognize them at the legal level. They further agued (and to this day,

these same arguments are made) that public policy regarding gays and lesbians should

not be made by courts or elites because that infringes on the democratic values of the

society (Hull, 220).

The next step after understanding previous arguments for same-sex marriage (that

of the equal rights frame), and understanding arguments against same-sex marriage (anti-

marriage sentiment from the LGBT community, morality, and special rights arguments)

is to understand how to go about examining the new argument presented by Let Freedom

Ring, the idea of honoring same-sex couples for their love.

25

Chapter 3

Research Terms and Conceptual Framework

Operational Definitions

There are two primary variables of concern in this research, that of an

organization, and the concept of framing. For the purpose of this research, an

organization such as ―Let California Ring‖ is defined as a social movement organization,

specifically involved in the same-sex marriage debate in California. The idea of a frame

can have multiple definitions that essentially mean the same thing, but for the purposes

for this study, a frame is defined as ―a perspective infused into a message that promotes

the salience of selected pieces of information over others‖ (Nabi, 225). In terms of

variables, the point of this research is to examine how social movement organization such

as ―Let California Ring‖ thinks in terms of changing its basic frame of the argument for

same-sex marriage in California from a frame based on equal and civil rights to a frame

based on honoring relationships and the couples‘ love for each other.

26

Research Design

This research was accomplished using secondary source material as well as some

first source material. ―Let California Ring‘s‖ online website, www.letcaliforniaring.org/

will be examined in terms of its mission statement, strategies, and videos. In particular,

the commercial ―Garden Wedding‖ is examined frame by frame. Along with examining

the website and the commercial itself, news responses and reports will also be examined,

to look at how this new commercial was presented to the general public. As all of the

information can be found over the internet through archives and press releases, timing is

less important, but the time frame for the study could be considered to have happened

between the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2008.

Population and Sample

The many social change movement organizations that advocate for same-sex

marriage would be the full population. The sample in this case is the organization ―Let

California Ring.‖ In terms of population and the sample of frames, this is all frames on

all sides of the same-sex marriage debate. In the case of sampling, however, this research

will specifically examine the ―Garden Wedding‖ commercial that promotes an

advocating same-sex marriage frame in terms of recognition of same-sex couples and

honoring their love for each other.

Data Collection and Analysis

As stated before, the commercial as well as the organization will be examined in

terms of the frame that they represent and how this frame differs from previous frames in

terms of organizational thinking and emotional framing of the argument represented.

27

Limitations

One of the biggest concerns in terms of the limitations of this research would be

the access to data such as news reports covering the ―Garden Wedding‖ commercial.

While many news sources such as local television news programs, national newspapers,

and news websites may have covered the commercial initial, it may be hard to find them

in the vastness of the internet. Furthermore, even organizations that reported or collected

news reports could have deleted their collections of stories, both of which are experiences

beyond the control of the researcher.

In terms of validity and reliability, it is reasonable to assume that the examination

of the commercial will be both valid in terms of dissecting what is being shown in the

commercial and reliable in terms of the frame as emotional approach to the same-sex

marriage debate.

Finally, it is impossible to determine the effect of the commercial on its targeted

audience. At this point in time, while the California courts have legalized same-sex

marriage, there is a ballot measure for this upcoming November that would once again

ban same-sex marriage in the state. As that election is still many months away, it is

impossible to know how people who will vote have been influenced by the commercial

(if at all). Furthermore, it is very difficult to determine the exact effect the commercial

would have on their targeted audience of undecided voters.

28

Chapter 4

Research: The Organization: Let California Ring

The organization ―Let California Ring‖ is a somewhat unusual LGBT advocacy

agency. Unlike organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, which states that it is

―America‘s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and

transgender equality‖ (www.HRC.org), or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

whose mission is ―to build the grassroots power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender (LGBT) community‖ (www.thetaskforce.org), Let California Ring describes

itself as ―a public education campaign to open hearts and minds about the freedom and

the respect, support, protections, and responsibilities that come with marriage‖

(www.letcaliforniaring.org). Unlike the previous organizations that directly state that

they are directly working for LGBT Americans and their rights in the first sentence, Let

California Ring doesn‘t do that. Their approach is to present themselves as a teaching

organization reaching out to those who are undecided regarding same-sex marriage in

California.

The full brochure about Let California Ring is one single page that explains their

processes:

29

Let California Ring is a public education campaign to open hearts and

minds about the freedom to marry and the respect, support, protections,

and responsibilities that come with marriage. Every day, gay and lesbian

Californians are denied the freedom to marry the person they love.

Through a groundbreaking television ad and video, an interactive website

and a statewide network of community leaders and volunteers, the

campaign addresses the public‘s concerns and conflicts about marriage

and same-sex couples, builds a better understanding of the everyday

challenges lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians

face, and encourages dialogue through individual and public conversations

about ways to end exclusion (Let California Ring Brochure).

As mentioned before, Let California Ring seems a little different from some of the other

LGBT advocacy organizations out there. Their website is a little different, for instance.

As they state, it is interactive, rather than just having a number of facts, and a lot of text

overall as can be found at both of the other two organizations. They also use videos, that

can be found at their website under the Media Center-Videos link, showing that they are

more visually-oriented than some of the LGBT advocacy organizations.

It‘s important to also examine the exact mission statement, as that is what most

people who might become interested in the organization look at when gathering

information about an organization and trying to decide if they are interested in working

with the group. Let California Ring‘s mission statement reads as:

Lesbian and gay Californians deserve the freedom to marry the person

they love. Let California Ring is a public education campaign to open

hearts and minds about the freedom to marry and the respect, support,

protections, and responsibilities that come with marriage.

Let California Ring is a project of Equality California Institute, working in

a diverse coalition of over 60 national, state and local organizations

(www.letcaliforniaring.org/mission)

Throughout the mission statement, there is an emphasis on public education, as well as

the love and respect that gay and lesbian couples already have for each other and the

30

respect and support that they deserve for those relationships. The focus is on honoring

same-sex couples and their relationships.

What is also interesting about the Let California Ring organization is that it is not

a singular organization, but rather a campaign launched by multiple groups and funded by

many more as well as individuals. The following list is included from the website:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California

California Faith for Equality

COLAGE

Marriage Equality USA

National Black Justice Coalition

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)

The San Diego LGBT Community Center

Trans Equality LA

These organizations found that working together toward the common goal of achieving

marriage rights for same-sex couples in California would be a better approach than

working separately.

One of the techniques Let Freedom Ring uses that is a little unusual aside from

advertising is that of the House Party. One of Let California Ring‘s major goals is to get

500,000 new supporters for same-sex marriage rights and the idea is help achieve this

through house parties. As the Let California Ring website explains:

Getting a group of people in your life together in one room to talk about

the freedom to marry is the most effective way to spread the basic

messages of love and fairness for all families. Talking to people you know

will ultimately build a team of hundreds of thousands of people working to

open hearts and minds across California. The numbers add up fast!

Having a house party is easy--and it's a great way to raise funds that keep

the campaign going. We've got a special house party kit that makes

throwing a house party easy, including a great DVD.

31

By the way, a house party is also a PARTY. It's fun. You'll do all the

things you normally do to have a party, like choose food, music, and

friends, with the added benefit of some meaningful conversation too. We

will even send trained, inspiring Let California Ring speakers to your

event to support you and your efforts

(www.letcaliforniaring.org/House_Parties)

This is an unusual tactic, one that aims to attract those that can be called ―Straight

Allies.‖ These are heterosexuals who are willing to support the LGBT community in a

variety of ways, such as by voting and spreading the word amongst those that they know

who might also be willing to participate. Because there are considerably more

heterosexuals than non-heterosexuals in the United States, the LGBT community must

often rely on those who are sympathetic to them and their causes.

The interactive website, the working with other organizations, house parties and

the use of more visually-based techniques such as the advertisement to be discussed are

all signs of the organization operating a little differently from some of the other LGBT

advocacy organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign or the National Gay and

Lesbian Task Force. These techniques can be examined and partially explained by using

the single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning of organizations discussed in

chapter 1. In single-loop learning, ―actors (whether individuals, groups or organizations)

consider more effective methods or strategies for achieving their guiding principles

(which may be manifested as goals, policies, or values), but these actors are not open to

questioning those principles‖ (Foldy, 213). For Let California Ring, it could be argued

that the organizations that make up the education campaign have the collective goal of

getting more straight allies involved in the fight for same-sex marriage rights in

California. It can also be assumed that these organizations had tried other techniques in

order to get straight allies involved in same-sex marriage rights, possibly by including

32

them in their usual outreach to the LGBT community only to find that they were not

reaching those potential allies who were undecided.

As mentioned earlier, double-loop learning ―results when actors do evaluate and

change their guiding principles‖ (Foldy, 213); or when after consideration of previous

tactics, organizations realize that their current techniques no longer work as well as they

might have hoped, so they must change their methods. In this case, the fact that the

organizations making up Let California Ring decided to shift gears in their approaches

and instead of using just a general outreach to straight allies interested in supporting the

LGBT community, decided to directly go after those Californians who were on the fence

regarding same-sex marriage. Using techniques such as house parties, a visually-oriented

website, and television advertisements are examples of changing the techniques in order

to reach more of the targeted audience.

In triple-loop learning, ―actors go beyond questioning their own values and

consider values of the societal tradition system in which their actions are taking place‖

(Foldy, 213). As mentioned before, Let California Ring presents a somewhat new idea in

their commercial, one that approaches the same-sex marriage debate by using the

argument of honoring the love of same-sex couples have for each other. This new frame

is examined in more detail in the next section while studying the ―Garden Wedding‖

commercial that Let California Ring released.

33

Chapter 4

Let California Ring‘s ―Garden Wedding‖ Commercial

One of the most unique factors about Let California Ring is that they produced a

commercial that was not only played in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Palm

Springs, but can also be found on multiple websites such as YouTube.com and a variety

of personal blogs and websites. The original sixty second ―Garden Wedding Commercial

can be found at YouTube.com, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkhhD6Gqz34 .

What follows for the purposes of this examination is a frame-by-frame description of the

commercial.

[Commercial opens; music plays throughout]

A little girl skips through, carrying a basket, the camera turns to follow her as she skips

behind two women; one straightening the veil on the bride‘s head

[Scene shift]

The bride looks at herself in the mirror, smiling and looking very pleased with her

appearance in her bridal gown and veil, the camera fading out from the view of the

bride‘s reflection to the bride herself turning around

[Scene shift]

34

The bride stands up, taking the arm of an older man who is smiling very broadly

(probably her father) and is about to escort her down the isle

[Scene shift]

The door to the garden is closed, the father reaches out to turn the handle and it comes off

in his hand; he then reaches up and tries to open the door by pulling on the wood around

the small rectangular windows on the door

[Scene shift]

The door from the outside as the father opens the door at last, outside view of all the

guests and the orchestra playing music, the father leads his bridal daughter off to the side

[Scene shift]

The father leads his daughter when their way is suddenly blocked by two cars parked

very close together, and the viewer realizes that they are in the parking lot with no way to

go around the cars; the bride sighs and hefts up her many skirts, turning sideways and

trying to walk between the cars

[Scene shift]

As the bride gets through the parked cars, she steps on several soft drink cans that are

littering her path, breaking her shoe heel, turning her ankle and stumbling very badly

[Scene shift]

Father catches the daughter, patting her hand encouragingly several times as they go on

with their walk up to the garden trellis that is heavily covered with vines and ivy

[Scene shift]

The bride bumps into her ivy-covered trellis pausing to reach up and try to move some of

it out of her way

35

[Scene shift]

The camera changes view to that of the bride‘s viewpoint for a moment, and the audience

can see the lovely layout of the garden: the flower girl is right in front of her, family and

friends are on either side of the aisle, with her groom waiting for her in the far ground

with a canopy of vines

[Scene shift]

The camera returns to watching the bride as she tries to push the ivy in front of her out of

her way and it catches her veil, taking it off of her head and messing up her hair as she

finally gets through

Scene shift]

A close up on the flower girl as she starts to dispense her flowers, followed by a close up

on the bride‘s face, which now seems a little furrowed and upset until she smiles;

followed by a close up on three men, an older gentleman (possibly the pastor or priest

who will be performing the ceremony, the groom, and a third man (possibly the groom‘s

best man) who are smiling until their faces change to that of upset

[Scene shift]

The flower girl holds tightly onto the waist of the bride as the viewer sees the back of the

father try to pull her off the bride; he finally dislodges her and the viewer sees from the

side as the flower girl is taken off of the bride with a final side-view shot of an older

woman who is smiling up at the bride

[Scene shift]

A close-up shot of the bride‘s face, with what looks like a forced smile as she limps

forward

36

[Scene shift]

A side view of the same older woman, only without her head in view as she sticks out her

now visible cane to trip up the bride

[Scene shift]

The bride turns to look at the older woman as she falls down

[Scene shift]

A shot of the groom and the two men alongside him; his face appears shocked to see his

bride fall and he rushes to her side, the best man and the pastor grab onto him, pulling

him back and keeping him with them

[Scene shift]

The bride sitting down in the middle of the aisle, turning toward the groom and looking

up, her face sad and upset

[Scene shift]

The text ―What if you couldn‘t marry the one you love?‖ pops up across the bottom half

of the screen over the bride‘s dress as she looks very sad

[Scene shift]

The screen turns black; the text ―everyday, gay and lesbian couples are prevented from

marrying‖, the screen stays black until the text ―support the freedom to marry‖ shows up

along with the Let California Ring‘s website link. The only difference between this

commercial and the current one at Let California Ring‘s website under videos (which can

be found at

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ltJTJ6MQIuE&b=3554233

&ct=4563207 )are the last few words of text: ―Join the California Supreme Court in

37

supporting everyone‘s freedom to marry.‖ These words are then followed by the Let

California Ring website link.

As mentioned before, what seems to be truly unique about this commercial‘s

frame of same-sex marriage is that it is presented in a frame other than, simply, the equal

rights argument. This commercial uses the emotions of the viewer to help the argument

that same-sex couples should be recognized for the honor and love that they have for

each other, which is, of course, the very argument that Let California Ring has been

making from the beginning. It is the emphasis of the new frame, combined with the

visuals, which really make the organization different from several other same-sex

marriage advocacy groups.

This commercial embraces both the idea of using emotions in connection with a

frame and persuasion techniques. As mentioned earlier, emotions such as anger and fear

―can promote different degrees of message-processing, with uncertainty appraisal serving

as the key moderator‖ (Nabi, 228). However, the emotions hoped to be triggered by this

commercial are those of sadness and upset, as well as trying to develop a connection

between people who have gotten married or who will (heterosexuals) and those who can

not (gays and lesbians) and get them to empathize with those who cannot.

The image of bride and groom meeting one obstacle after another, culminating in

a woman tripping up the bride and the groom being held back by attendants so that he

can‘t attend to his bride, is a very compelling illustration. If ―some emotions such as

disgust and surprise enhance recall of the central concepts of commercials in the short

and long term compared to other emotions such as happiness, fear, and guilt‖ (Nabi 228);

than it is reasonable to assume that an image producing emotions of compassion and

38

upset is also likely to stay with the viewer. When one considers that the central message

of the commercial is to connect the viewers to the fact that gays and lesbians can‘t get

married, it draws the mind to what a wedding is supposed to be and to mean.

If a wedding is supposed to represent hope for the couple‘s lives, honoring and

respecting the love that they have by witnessing it, and supporting the couple in their love

and honor, then this commercial drives home the fact that gay and lesbian couples can‘t

have these things, or at least not in a manner that is legally recognizable. For it is certain

that gay and lesbian couples could have ―commitment ceremonies‖ enacted by pastors

and ministers that are willing to perform them; but that doesn‘t make them legally

binding, and the fact remains that many religious leaders are not willing to perform them

in the first place.

This commercial also acts as a persuading device to help change the minds of

possible straight allies that are on the fence regarding same-sex marriage. Persuasion

―takes place when a communicator effectively revises the content of one‘s beliefs about

an attitude object, replacing or supplementing favorable thoughts with unfavorable ones

or vice-versa‖ (Druckman, 1044). By using the images mentioned above, one can

recognize that Let California Ring is presenting a persuasive argument for same-sex

marriage through the use of an emotionally-based frame: that of accepting and supporting

the love and honor that same-sex couples have for each other. Specifically, they are

trying to influence the decision of those who are unsure about where they stand on the

issue of same-sex marriage by convincing them through the images and words of their

commercial that they can help those who currently can‘t get married. When a recent poll

(Hamlin, 2007) shows that California is almost evenly split on the issue of same-sex

39

marriage (48 percent opposed to 46 percent approved), then the main objective must be to

target those who are on the fence.

Along with examining the frame that is presented, one should also consider the

way in which the frame is presented. The use of a commercial stands out because it is

visual, when so many of the other frames previously considered have been very verbal

and written. It has been said that a picture is worth considerably more than words, in that

it leaves a greater impression and can be easier to understand. People do not really think

in words, but rather in images and emotions, and this use of a commercial reflects that.

While the commercial and its argument supporting same-sex marriages based on

the ideal of recognizing and supporting gay and lesbian couples is important, the next

step is to examine the way in which the commercial was presented to the general

population through the media.

40

Chapter 4

Research-Presentation of the Frame: Media Presentation

One way in which the presentation of a frame can be examined, is the media

presentation. Eight newspaper articles, two videos and one video transcript were

examined for author influence and bias using the criteria mentioned earlier. Of the

eleven news presentations, three categories were found: supportive, balanced, and

negative presentation of the topic. The majority (eight of eleven media examples) of the

various media reactions were found to be balanced, in that they were neither directly

supportive, nor directly negative in their reporting; two were found to be supportive in

their reporting; and one was found to be negative in its reporting on the topic of same-sex

marriage. The quality of the reporting, the phrases that are used as well as general

wording the author uses in presenting the story of the ―Garden Wedding‖ ad produced by

Let California Ring were examined in order to best determine which of the three

categories the various media presentations belonged.

Of the two supportive articles (written by Wolfson and McMillan), one appeared

in the San Francisco Bay Times: The Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Trans Newspaper & Events

Calendar for the Bay Area, so it is logical that the author would likely be supportive of

41

the ad, the organization, and the same-sex marriage debate. There is no direct evidence

to suggest that Wolfson‘s piece in The Huffington Post is a result of the paper being of a

part of a pro-LGBT agenda or origin.

There are several quotes in both articles that reflect a positive approach to the

television advertisement. For example, Wolfson (2007) in The Huffington Post writes:

The wedding ad, which can be seen on www.letcaliforniaring.org, puts

viewers in the shoes of the many same-sex couples who are prevented

from marrying the person that they love. It‘s striking how many non-gay

people have never really been invited to put themselves in another‘s place.

Left on their own, they too often treat their view or vote on ending

marriage discrimination as kind of a ―freebie‖ that has no real-life

consequences to couples, kids, and even the gay people they say they want

to be fair to.

All of which gives strength to the idea that the writer shares supportive beliefs for the

pro-same-sex marriage debate. Another major quote of influence showing the supportive

nature of the article is

To make these conversations happen, we have to break the chicken-and-

egg of gay people not talking to the people in their lives directly about

why we need them to care about ending exclusion from marriage, while

non-gay people wait for their non-gay friends and family-members to

bring it up, or think everything is fine. It‘s not enough to be tolerant and

caring, because gay people we care about are being treated as second-class

citizens and the same-sex couples we know are denied important tangible

and intangible protections and respect.

Several phases in these two quotes show a great strength in supportive words for the

ideas behind the commercial. It uses words that have a pro-LGBT ring to them, such as

non-gays, and emphasizes the need for support.

The San Francisco Bay Times article by McMillan (2007) begins by first

mentioning many of the organizations that are working together to create the Let

42

California Ring campaign. Again, considering that this is a pro-LGBT newspaper

publication, it makes sense that it would refer to all of those that are involved in the

campaign to let those that they support know what they are working on. The phrases that

the article uses to support the new campaign are less directly supportive of the

advertisement itself, and more supportive of the movement as a whole:

Kors reminded the audience that it has now been four years almost to the

month since the Winter of Love on Valentines weekend 2004, when

hundreds of same-sex couples were married in City Hall. And then just

six months later, all the marriages were voided by order of the State Court.

This action made way for rightwing homophobes to sponsor an

amendment to the California Constitution declaring that only a man and a

woman may legally marry. Since then, the right wing has spent several

hundred thousand dollars gathering signatures to thus revise the

Constitution and forever brand same-sex marriages unlawful.

Much of the paragraph expresses frustration directed at the ongoing struggle same-sex

marriage proponents have faced in California. Many phrases in the paragraph, such as

―voiding marriages,‖ ―rightwing homophobes,‖ and ―forever brand same-sex marriages

unlawful‖ are key examples of the frustration that the writer both feels and shares with

the LGBT community.

There was considerably more media coverage that was reflective of a balanced,

neutral position. The five articles, one video transcription, and two videos generally

present the commercial, discussion of the commercial, discussion of the organization and

the discussion of the organization‘s goals in a ―facts only,‖ dispassionate discussion.

There are multiple examples within each article as the writer tries to present the topic of

same-sex marriage and those that support it in a neutral light. Marcelo (2007) of the San

Francisco News writes ―this commercial is part of the Let California Ring campaign that

uses various mediums in order to influence the percentage of Californians who are

43

currently undecided over the issue of same-sex marriage‖ as well as stating that ―the

ingenious appeal of the ad, therefore, is its ability to place a straight person in the shoes

of a gay person‖; both of which are phrases designed to explain without the use of

prejudicial words.

Other writers do a very nice job of directly quoting one of the leaders of an

organization involved in the Let California Ring campaign. Several authors cite Geoff

Kors, the director of Equality California Institute, as Langewis (2007) does in the article

found at PageOneQ:

“You meet someone special. You fall in love and vow to spend your lives

together. Maybe you want to get married. Yet every day, lesbian and gay

people in California are denied the freedom to marry the person they

love.” (Italics in original)

Another director that is quoted is Jody Huckaby, the executive director of Parents,

Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Leff (2007), in the Oakland Tribune,

explains:

Though the messages are often aimed at heterosexuals who have a

personal connection with someone who is gay, the initiatives have a purely

practical side. ―It‘s just a matter of numbers,‖ said Jody Huckaby,

executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

―There are a lot more straight people than LGBT people.‖

These two quotes could be considered as examples of using credible sources to further a

cause: in this case, using directors who are involved in supporting same-sex marriages to

provide information and reasoning behind the commercial and the education campaign as

a whole. Furthermore, the citing of these credible sources by a credible source (the

newspapers as opposed to a tabloid) gives further credibility to the actions of the

44

organization being discussed (Let California Ring‘s commercial and other activities) as

well as the movement as a whole.

The last of the neutral presented news media pieces regarding the Let California

Ring commercial present a new element into their discussion: they introduce arguments

of the opposition. For example, Sanders (2007) writes on both supporters such as the

previously referenced Kors: ―‘The long-term goal is to have the majority of Californians

support the freedom to marry—to change the climate here,‘ said Geoff Kors, executive

director of Equality California, which is coordinating the campaign‖; as well as

referencing opponents of the campaign as a whole:

But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and

Families, said, ―Most people know deep in their hearts that marriage is a

very special relationship between a man and a woman. In the big picture,

those house parties and events are only for those loosey-goosey liberals

who already support the notion of homosexual marriages,‖ Thomasson

said.

Sanders returns to the Let California Ring campaign, the amount of money that they have

raised, as well as their list of backers and supporters after the quick counter-argument.

Hamlin (2007) of the San Francisco Chronicle cites another leader of the

campaign, Seth Kilbourn, Equality California‘s political and policy director: ―This

campaign is intended to move the state ‗over the tipping point‘, Kilbourn said. ‗We

wanted to connect to the people of California on an emotional level, on a level they can

identify with.‘‖ And later on cites another opponent against same-sex marriage:

―The homosexual community continues to attempt to attract the emotions

of society,‖ said [Ron] Prentice, executive director of the California

Family Council, a group that is ―committed to promoting Judeo-Christian

principles‖ and is part of an anti-gay marriage consortium called

ProtectMarriage.com. ―Our home is that society will recognize that the

meaning and purpose of marriage is more than an emotional argument.‖

45

The transcript entitled ―Gay Marriage Push: Special Rings Given To Couples‖ of

the original video news piece ―New California Ads Promote Same-Sex Marriage‖ done

by a local CBS channel both reference those for and against same-sex marriage. The

major difference is that the actual news video shows more interview time with the

previously mentioned Geoff Kors:

―It‘s less about showing lesbian and gay people which we‘ve done in a lot

of contexts, but actually putting straight people in our shoes, to make them

emotionally feel what it would be like to be prevented from marrying the

person they are now married to, or the person they hope to marry,‖ said

Kors.

They also both reference, of course, the same opposing argument:

We showed the ad to a group opposed to gay marriage, Catholics for the

Common Good, based in Daly City. ―It‘s purely emotional, and it really

misrepresents what marriage is all about,‖ said Catholics for Common

Good member William B. May. ―What is the public interest in regulating

emotional relationships between people? The real purpose of marriage is

to build a foundation with a mother and a father for children.‖

But both also reference a unique event that other news media have not, the showing of

the commercial to someone whom is a member of the targeted audience, namely,

someone who has not yet made up their mind regarding the freedom to marry in

California:

At the Manor Coffee Shop in San Francisco‘s West Portal Neighborhood,

we showed the ad to Katina Foster, who has been undecided about gay

marriage. ―I thought the commercial was well done,‖ said Foster. ―It

brings the point across, but I still haven‘t made up my mind one way or

the other.‖

That is the point where the transcription ends. However, in the actual video news, the

viewer learns that Foster, while still not positively one way or the other, is leaning a little

more in favor of same-sex marriage, ―because the emotional impact, the heartbreak, is

46

well-demonstrated.‖ It is curious that the editor of the transcript decided to leave this part

of the video out of the transcript itself, this might an example of the editor‘s

predisposition influencing the reader.

The CNN video of the ad also has a short comment from Geoff Kors: ―The ad is

designed to put people in the shoes of gay and lesbian people, and understand the pain

and hurt that we feel from being denied the right to marry‖ before giving a bit of

background information on the debate of same-sex marriage in California. Afterwards,

there is a short comment from Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative

organization defending religious freedom which calls the new commercial ―propaganda‖:

―If it‘s opened up to two men and two women, it can easily be opened up to protect

polygamy or adult incest or any other kind of non-conventional relationship outside of

traditional marriage.‖ After the last comment, the video returns to the CNN commentator

who addresses that argument by stating that according to many LGBT-rights advocating

organizations, those against same-sex marriage ―can come up with any argument not

based in fact.‖

In the final news piece, Black (2007) from the Christian Post Reporter, one can

see almost immediately that the author has a negative viewpoint on the same-sex

marriage debate. The fact that the article is entitled ―Same-Sex ‗Marriage‘ TV Ad

Attempts to Sway Calif. Voters‖ is the first example; the word ―marriage‖ is set in

quotation marks and indicates that the marriage between two people of the same sex

could not be a real marriage. Additionally, it becomes clear that the writer did not

interview anyone involved in the debate on the proponent side, as all of the quotes that

the writer uses are taken from the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee.

47

This is also the case with all quotes from the opposing side of the argument, indicating

that the article, while researched, is not actively pursued by the author.

There are two other quotes to consider as proof of Black‘s lack of support for the

commercial, the organization, and the movement: ―In addition to the TV ad, thousands of

volunteers are expected to conduct house parties, knock on voters‘ doors, and give

speeches to promote the push and help ‗spark a million conversations‘ about the freedom

to wed.‖ This quotation shows the disdain of the author for the people who are willing to

help participate in the movement and to achieve the goals of Let California Ring. The

last line of note for an example of the author‘s lack of support is also the last line of the

article: ―Currently, Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex ‗marriage‘ is legal.‖

This statement has the same primary issue with it that the title of the article did. The fact

that the word ―marriage‖ is in quotation marks suggests that it is less-so than traditional

marriage between people of the opposite sex. When one considers that the opening and

closing of the article has the same word use, it truly shows that author‘s dislike of the

concept being addressed.

One could potentially make the argument that since all of those quoted as being

against same-sex marriage are identified as Christian, then all Christians are against

same-sex marriage. This is of course not the case; one need only look at the list of

financial backers and supporters of the Let California Ring campaign to see the names of

a few pro-LGBT Christian organizations. But that issue is only one of a few to consider

when examining this research in its entirety.

48

Chapter 4

Conclusions, Concerns, and Further Research

Conclusion

The intention of this research was to determine if the organization Let California

Ring operated in a manner representing the theory that an organization can learn and

change its strategies and tactics; if the ―Garden Wedding‖ commercial was an example of

a new frame in support of same-sex marriages; and if the news media coverage of the

commercial and the organization was balanced. In examining the Let California Ring

campaign, it is clear that the organizations working together in this endeavor have had to

change their techniques when it came to approaching their targeted audiences. Shifting

from a frame of same-sex marriage as an equal right to a frame of same-sex marriage

represents honoring the love of same-sex couples is an example of the organization

changing their argument to better connect with their targeted audience. In effect the

changed frame emphasizes the value of ―romantic love‖ and honor for a marital partner,

rather than only the equal rights value theme. The new frame seems to neutralize the

morality theme of opposing homosexual marriage, by connecting with the theme of the

salience of romantic love.

49

The commercial ―Garden Wedding‖ presents this new frame in such a way as to

truly connect with the audience; by putting heterosexuals who have married or who

would like to get married in the shoes of a group of people who are denied the freedom

marry the ones that they love. This new frame connects better with an audience who are

more apt to think about their wedding day with a sense of romanticism rather than with

plans for protecting their loved ones legally. Morgan‘s (2006) theoretical paradigm

focusing on the ―organization as brain and learner‖ appears to be manifest in the framing

transformation of ―Let California Ring‖ and the Garden Wedding television video. What

will ―Let California Ring‖ learn from the upcoming referendum on the fall, 2008, ballot,

relevant to this video presentation as a framing mechanism?

In terms of how the news media reacted, when one examines the sample taken

from the internet archives of these newspapers and news programs, one can see that the

pieces were neutral for the most part. The fact that, of the two supportive articles, one

came from an LGBT newspaper reflects the rest of the society‘s confliction with LGBT

issues; LGBT issues have to be presented in a neutral tone and only those who can

outwardly show their support are already members of the LGBT community or are

straight allies. It is also interesting that the one negative article showed little in the way of

first-hand investigation and was pieced together by using neutral sources for quotes

mixed with the author‘s own words.

There are two key policy implications to note. In the first case, one should

recognize that the use of new technologies such as the internet, with the access to blogs,

websites, and their content, is an example of how organizations learn to think. In the

process of loop-learning, organizations have ―learned‖ to make use of the rapidly

50

changing technology in order to better present their argument. Furthermore, if an

organization continues with double and triple-loop learning, the use of the new

technology prepares and enables them to change their arguments as quickly as they need

to. This is a technique not limited only to LGBT advocacy organizations, but any

advocacy organization seeking change.

In the second case, should the voter referendum in November against same-sex

marriage fail to pass the voters, it could signify a new frame for multiple LGBT advocacy

organizations. After winning the freedom to marry, organizations advocating other

issues, such as same-sex couple adoption of children, could present a new, emotional-

based frame such as the power of love between a mother or father and child, to the

undecided public along with continuing to use their previous arguments. Again, this

would be a new technique for multiple advocacy organizations, such as interest groups

and lobbyists seeking welfare reform. For after having seen that an emotional frame can

be used to make change in one area of public policy, they can use it in other areas as well.

Concerns

The primary area of concern in this research stems from the articles investigated

for the news media reaction research. The sample was not taken randomly, nor is it clear

that it is an entirely representative sample. The sample was collected several months

after the initial event (the appearance of the ―Garden Wedding‖ commercial) by

searching the internet for news reports on the commercial. As a result, newspapers that

did not have an internet archive, or only posted a story about the commercial in the print

edition could not be researched, as could be the case with many smaller newspapers.

However, considering that the commercial was only shown in four major cities and their

51

immediate surrounding areas, smaller towns farther away may not have even covered the

story because it was simply not in their demographic.

Another area of concern is the lack of information regarding how well the

commercial may have done its primary objective, that of changing the minds of people

who were undecided on the question of same-sex marriage. Only two resources (one

news broadcast and the other its transcript) even mentioned showing the ad to an

undecided member of the population and finding out that person‘s reaction.

Future Research

It would be very interesting to learn how long the commercial continued to play in

the aforementioned cities along with doing possible surveys regarding the targeted

audience‘s reactions to the commercial. Considering that the election in the fall of 2008

carries yet another voter referendum blocking same-sex marriages from being performed

and recognizing only marriages between members of the opposite sex, it is still a very

contentious topic in California along with the rest of the United States.

Future researchers on this topic should try to ascertain the exact amount of

influence that the commercial had on California‘s undecided citizens. This could be

researched through surveys, perhaps even interviews with people after their vote. The

fact also remains that the actual vote in the upcoming election could provide more

information about such framing initiatives based on the result of the proposed

referendum.

52

References

1. Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. (2000). Framing Processes and Social

Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. 26, 611-

639.

2. Black, Nathan. (2007, October 10). Same-Sex ‗Marriage‘ TV Ad Attempts to

Sway Calif. Voters. Christian Post Reporter.

3. Campbell, John L. (2002). Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy. Annual Review of

Sociology. 28, 21-38.

4. Druckman, James N. (2001). On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?

The Journal of Politics. 63. 4. 1041-1066.

5. Dudas, Jeffrey R. (2005). In the Name of Equal Rights: ―Special‖ Rights and the

Politics of Resentment in Post-Civil Rights America. Law & Society Review. 39,

4, 723-757.

6. Foldy, Erica Gabrielle and W.E. Douglass Creed. (1999). Action Learning,

Fragmentation, and the Interaction of Single-, Double-, and Triple-Loop Change:

A Case of Gay and Lesbian Workplace Advocacy. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science. 35, 2, 207-227.

7. Gay Marriage Push: Special Rings Given To Couples. (2007.) Local News.

Retrieved June 23, 2008, from: http://cbs13.com/local/2.483367.html

8. Gibson, Rhonda and Joe Bob Hester. (2007). Effects of Sources in Coverage of

Same-Sex Marriage. Newspaper Research Journal. 28, 2, 71-81.

9. Haider-Markel, Donald P. (2001) ―Defense, Morality, Civil Rights and Family:

The Evolution of Lesbian and Gay Issues in the U.S. Congress.‖ In Queer

Families, Queer Politics. Eds. Mary Bernstein and Renate Reimann. New York,

NY: Columbia University Press, 358-378.

10. Hamlin, Jesse. (2007, October 9.) TV ad campaign attempts to sway the

undecided on same-sex marriage. San Francisco Chronicle. A1.

11. Hartmann, Thom. (2007) Cracking the Code. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

12. Hull, Kathleen E. (2001). The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of

Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii. Sociological Perspectives. 44, 2, 207-232.

53

13. Human Rights Campaign. (2008). Questions About Same-Sex Marriage.

Retrieved June 24, 2008, from: http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm

14. -----. (2008). Statewide Marriage Prohibitions Map. Retrieved June 21, 2008,

from: http://www.hrc.org/documents/marriage_prohibitions.pdf

15. Langewis, Nick. (2007, October 9). Video commercial campaign urges the

affirmation of gay marriage rights in California. PageOneQ. Retrieved June 23,

2008 from: http://pageoneq.com/news/2007/letcaliforniaring_100907.html

16. Leff, Lisa. (2007, October 17). Gays Lean on Straight Friends to Help in Battle

for Marriage. Oakland Tribune.

17. Let California Ring. (2007). Facts. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from:

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm

18. -----. (2007). Garden Wedding Video. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from:

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ltJTJ6MQIuE&b

=3554233&ct=4563207

19. -----. (2007). Mission. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from:

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348095/k.C75E/Mission.

htm

20. -----. (2007). Press Materials: Learn More About Let California Ring. Retrieved

June 23, 2008, from:

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348109/k.A56B/Press_M

aterials.htm

21. ―Let California Ring‖ Ad Campaign. (2007). CNN Video. Retrieved June 23,

2008, from

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2007/10/09/snow.ca.same.sex.ad.cnn

22. Marcelo, Susana. (2007, October 14). With This Ring, I Thee Wed? The Let

California Ring Campaign Advocates Same-Sex Marriage. San Francisco News.

23. McMillan, Dennis. (2008, January 31). Marriage Equality Activists Strategize on

Bringing Marriage Rights Support to the Masses. San Francisco Bay Times.

24. Morgan, Gareth. (2006). Images of Organization. Toronto. Sage.

25. Nabi, Robin L. (2003). Exploring the Effects of Emotion: Do Discrete Emotions

Differentially Influence Information Accessibility, Information Seeking, and

Policy Preference? Communication Research. 30. 224-247.

54

26. National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce. (2008). Mission Statements. Retrieved June

27, 2008, from: http://www.thetaskforce.org/about_us/mission_statements

27. New California Ads Promote Same-Sex Marriage. (2007.) CBS Local News.

Retrieved June 23, 2008, from:

http://cbs13.com/services/popoff.aspx?categoryId=7&videoId=35481@kovr.dayp

ort.com&videoPlayStatus=false&videoStoryIds=25804@kovr.dayport.com&vide

oTime=&

28. Oliver, Pamela E. and Daniel J. Myers. (1999). How Events Enter the Public

Sphere: Conflict, Location, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of

Public Events. The American Journal of Sociology. 105, 1, 38-87.

29. Price, Vincent et. al. (2005). Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions.

Public Opinion Quarterly. 69, 2, 179-212.

30. Riggle, Ellen D. B. et. al. (2006). Advance Planning Sby Same-Sex Couples.

Journal of Family Issues. 27. 6. 758-776.

31. Sanders, Jim. (2007, October 8). Same-Sex Marriage Backers Go To TV: New

ads ask viewers to ‗open hearts and minds‘ on the issue. The Sacramento Bee.

32. Smith, Miriam. (2007). Framing Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United

States: Goodridge, Halpern and The National Boundaries of Political Discourse.

Social Legal Studies, 16, 1, 5-26.

33. Soule, Sarah A. (2004). Going to the Chapel? Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the

United States, 1973-2000. Social Problems, 51, 4, 453-477.

34. Steinberg, Marc W. (1998). Tilting the Frame: Considerations on Collective

Action Framing from a Discursive Turn. Theory and Society. 27, 6, 845-872.

35. (2006, March 13). A New Medium for the Message. Congressional Quarterly,

Fall 2006, 53-59.

36. Wiethoff, Carolyn. (2002). Naming, Blaming, and Claiming in Public Disputes:

The 1998 Maine Referendum on Civil Rights Protection for Gay Men and

Lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality. 44, 1, 61-82.

37. Wolfson, Evan. (2007, October 23). Let California Ring: Talking About Change

Makes It. The Huffington Post.

38. Woodman, Richard W. et. al. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational

Creativity. The Academy of Management Review. 18, 2, 293-321.

55

39. YouTube. (2008) Garden Wedding Ad. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkhhD6Gqz34